Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ge-filed-57000-page-tax-return-paid-no-taxes-14-billion-profits_609137.html" target="_blank">http://www.weeklystandard.com/...137.html</a> Is anyone surprised about this? Especially when GE's CEO, Jeffery Immelt is Obama's "jobs czar".
Originally Posted By Dabob2 They are able to do this due to loopholes that Republicans refuse to close, terming them "tax hikes."
Originally Posted By patrickegan How come the big O didn't close them when he had the super majority? Hmmm, interesting how it's still someone else's fault??
Originally Posted By mawnck I think Kennesaw Tom has a valid point here though. This isn't one that Dems are entitled to point fingers at.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 SOME Dems share some blame here, but the only ones talking about taking the loopholes away ARE Dems. The Republicans have all signed Norquist's ridiculous "no new taxes" pledge, which he makes clear, counts closing loopholes as "new taxes." And Patrick, you must know that Obama did not have a supermajority in the senate; any proposal to end loopholes like this would be filibustered and killed there due to that same pledge. So yes, that IS the Republicans' fault, though there are Democrats in corporate pockets as well, to be sure. Just not all of them.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 Maybe, but I have to say that the "jobs czar" doesn't really have anything to do with tax loopholes. The same tax loopholes have been around longer than the jobs czar has had his job. I also wonder why this continues to be "news" every year. It will be news when such companies actually start paying taxes.
Originally Posted By dshyates What I'm wondering is why did UPS end up paying 34% if GE paid none? Seems to me UPS needs a better accounting team.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Another thread where the object is to point fingers and play the blame game. Utter crap.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I think Kennesaw Tom has a valid point here though.<< Not really. There's no evidence GE didn't pay taxes just because the CEO works with Obama, which is clearly implied in the OP. The issue, as dabob points out, is with the Republican 11th commandment, no taxes. Of course, I'd wager KT created this topic just to take a liberal talking point and spin it around on them. "Aha, I'm just as annoyed that GE didn't pay taxes, but it turns out it's all Obama's fault! Bask in my cleverness!"
Originally Posted By mawnck >>The issue, as dabob points out, is with the Republican 11th commandment, no taxes.<< There's no evidence of that either. We don't know how GE got away with it. But we do know, for sure, that (a) they did and (b) their CEO is Obama's Jobs Czar. One more time ... Read it slowly ... The CEO of GE is Obama's Jobs Czar. This guy: <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/ge.asp" target="_blank">http://www.snopes.com/politics...s/ge.asp</a> You don't have a big problem with that? Coz I sure do.
Originally Posted By andyll So let me get this straight... Obama waved a magic wand and GE pays no taxes for 2010 then as a reward/punishment the CEO has to work in his administration? I don't speak fluent teabagger but are they claiming that Obama can somehow make a companies tax bill go away? And what about the other 100 or so F500 companies that paid no taxes in 2010. Are their CEOs also working in the administration also? Maybe cleaning bathrooms or something? And exactly why is our socialist, communist, capitalism hating president helping out huge corporations. Do paradoxs not exist in teabagger world? I haven't been this confused since I took non-euclidean geometry in college.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo Indeed, the GE tax agreement predated Obama, but I have to agree with Mawnck here. It SCREAMS lobbyism, something Obama vowed to avoid. Even if Obama had nothing to do with it, he needs to remember that he'll be judged by the company he keeps.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>You don't have a big problem with that? Coz I sure do.<< I don't love it, no, but as has been pointed out, GE's taxes predated Obama's appointment of Immelt. So Obama using Immelt as his jobs czar is a separate issue from GE's taxes, and the OP wants to act as if they're the same, as if an arrangement was made. "Obama appoints this guy and GE pays no taxes? Coincidence!?! I DON'T THINK SO!" Yeah, not so much with that.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>The issue, as dabob points out, is with the Republican 11th commandment, no taxes.<< <There's no evidence of that either. We don't know how GE got away with it. > Well, we sorta do. They filed a 19,000 page (!!) tax return (electronically - if printed out it would be 19 feet high) that took advantage of all sorts of perfectly legal mechanisms to reduce their tax liability. Chief among them were keeping most of their profits offshore and claiming big losses on their financial arm (GE Capital), but in 19,000 pages, there were definitely others. These mechanisms were put in place over many years, through White Houses and Congresses of both parties, and certainly predate Obama or his appointment of Immelt (which I'm not crazy about either). What I was pointing out was that at least there are some Democrats who are now calling for closing some of these loopholes, whereas Republicans nearly unanimously insist that doing so constitutes a "tax hike." Now to be fair, there ARE some Republicans (and Democrats) who say we should close the loopholes in exchange for a lower overall corporate tax rate. But the Republicans among them still insist that if that results in a net increase for the Treasury, that it's a "tax hike" and mustn't be done. They insist any reform end up being revenue-neutral, or even negative because, after all, we don't want to "punish the job creators." Me, I'd be fine with overhauling the tax system in general and closing the loopholes in exchange for a lower rate, if it were revenue neutral or positive - but that's something that would literally take years to accomplish, considering how slowly things get done in DC and how long it took to create the current mess. In the meantime, I'm more than fine with simply closing some of the loopholes, which would bring in revenue right away, but which Republicans refuse to do. By the way, here's an interesting article which claims that both the original NY Times article that caused all the fuss about GE (and which other news sources ran with), AND GE itself in its responses are (their words) "full of crap." <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/ge-taxes-new-york-times-2011-3" target="_blank">http://www.businessinsider.com...s-2011-3</a>
Originally Posted By patrickegan Why, who's on the contributor list? <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638" target="_blank">http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...00009638</a> Use of the Teabagger label make you sound very openminded and intelligent. ;-)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Me, I'd be fine with overhauling the tax system in general and closing the loopholes in exchange for a lower rate, if it were revenue neutral or positive - but that's something that would literally take years to accomplish, considering how slowly things get done in DC and how long it took to create the current mess.<< Hello? They made "in God We Trust" our national motto, again, in no time at all. Haven't they done enough?
